Claude review: drm/msm: Centralize the standalone drm device check for GPU

[Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>]

Patch Review

**Verdict: Acceptable, but the NULL parameter convention is awkward.**

The rename from `msm_gpu_no_components()` to `msm_gpu_use_separate_drm_dev(pdev)` centralizes the `amd,imageon` compatibility check. However, the two call sites in `msm_drv.c` pass `NULL`:

```c
+			    msm_gpu_use_separate_drm_dev(NULL) ?
```
```c
+	if (!msm_gpu_use_separate_drm_dev(NULL)) {
```

And the function has a special case for NULL:

```c
+bool msm_gpu_use_separate_drm_dev(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	if (!pdev)
+		return separate_gpu_kms;
+
+	return of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "amd,imageon") || separate_gpu_kms;
+}
```

Passing `NULL` to skip the imageon check is a code smell. These callers don't have a pdev and really only care about `separate_gpu_kms`. Consider either keeping a no-argument helper for that case, or documenting why the NULL-with-different-semantics pattern is intentional. As-is, a reader has to read the function body to understand that `NULL` means "just check the module param."

---

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer